Floor Statements

I want to thank Mr. Hunter for yielding time and just say to my friend, Mrs. Tauscher, that I very much understand and appreciate the goals that she has in bringing this legislation forward, but, at the same time, I think there are some realities that we have to face relative to the subject that the bill addresses.

The problem here is twofold. Number one, there is the issue of command flexibility. As Mr. Hunter pointed out just a few minutes ago, we learned in previous wars that making decisions on tactical activities in a war should not probably be made at the White House and probably should even less likely be made here by 435 Members of Congress.

So while I very much appreciate and agree with the goal of making sure that every soldier and Marine and every member of the four services gets time to recharge their batteries between deployments, having a law which stipulates how precisely that is to be done is a very unwise thing to do.

Secondly, let me say that this problem involves the total number of people that we have in the service. We make decisions from time to time, and sometimes those decisions are right, hopefully most of the time those decisions are right, but sometimes they are not.

In 1991 and 1992, when we started to hear about the ``peace dividend,'' we decided, collectively, all of us together, some in disagreement, that it would be okay to reduce the size of the Army from about 18 divisions to the equivalent of 10. We collectively decided to reduce the number of people in the Army significantly, almost by half. So today we are operating with the equivalent of 10 divisions, made up in a different structure, a brigade structure; and today 20 of those brigades, Army and Marine brigades, are deployed in Iraq.

When the Commander in Chief and his military commanders in the field decide they need to make changes, they make them based on need, based on threat, and based on operational plans and operational capabilities. That flexibility must in this situation, in my opinion, be preserved.

So, while those of us on this side of the aisle certainly share the goals of the gentlewoman from California, this bill is most unwise and will do, as Mr. Hunter said, much more harm than good to our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the conference report of H.R. 1, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This comprehensive bill addresses many of our homeland security issues, and as a conferee I am pleased that the conference report includes an important provision that protects those who see suspicious behavior and take the initiative to notify the authorities of their concerns. No one should have to fear prosecution for acting vigilantly and coming forward when they see something that doesn't seem right. If anything, we should be encouraging people to speak up when they see suspicious behavior while waiting to board a plane or shopping in a crowded mall.

Take the alert store clerk in New Jersey who noticed suspicious activities on a tape he was asked to transfer to DVD. This young man was at work, saw something that didn't seem right, and alerted the authorities. As a direct result of his actions, a terrorist strike against a military installation in my district--Ft. Dix--was prevented. This man should be heralded as a hero, not prosecuted like a criminal.

It may have taken some time, but my fellow conferees worked through their differences, and in the end supported the inclusion of this vital provision. Had this language not been included, who knows what untold tragedies could have occurred if observant individuals, afraid of possible prosecution, did not contact law enforcement officials.

Again, I support this important measure and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to engage my distinguished colleague, Chairman Mollohan, in a colloquy regarding the importance of supporting ecosystem-based monitoring to better understand water quality and ecosystem effects on our fisheries.

U.S. fisheries are experiencing increasing pressure as the near-shore marine ecosystems that sustain them deteriorate due to human activity and as blooms of jellyfish and other organisms that compete for food with juvenile fish like summer flounder grow in frequency and abundance.

The present trend may well be the cause of significant economic harm to coastal communities in various areas along the coast. The lack of rebuilding in one of our most important coastal fisheries, summer flounder, may be an example of the downside to managing a fishery without taking into account the ecosystem impacts on its ability to rebuild. An ecosystem-based approach to management requires ecosystem- based monitoring. The use of innovative, cost-effective, place-based data collection systems would provide continuous high-quality data on a number of important water quality and biological parameters that will greatly improve the data which fisheries are managed.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will consider allocating some of the programmatic resources in this bill to support the use of such new technologies that hold great promise.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his attention to this matter.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr Speaker, as the author of this legislation, I am pleased the House is now considering H.R. 465. This simple non- controversial legislation will extend the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund at existing authorization levels of up to $5 million each year until September 30, 2012.

During our public hearing on H.R. 465, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers this Fund, testified that: ``The Asian Elephant Conservation Act has greatly enhanced the conservation status of the Asian elephant''.

There are currently only about 40,000 wild Asian elephants living in south and southeastern Asia. As a result, this species is listed on our Endangered Species Act, on Appendix I of CITES and on the World Conservation Union's Red List.

In response to the ongoing slaughter of this keystone species, Congress adopted the Asian Elephant Conservation Act which I was pleased to sponsor in 1997. In the decade since its enactment, the Secretary of the Interior has carefully reviewed over 300 conservation projects designed to save Asian elephants for future generations. The Secretary has approved 183 of these grant proposals which

have received $9 million in Federal funds and $11.3 million in private matching funds.

As every witness testified, there is an overwhelming need to extend this important conservation program and there is no question that these conservation funds have had a profound impact on protecting this irreplaceable species. While everyone enjoys seeing elephants at the National Zoo, it is far more important that they continue to exist in the wild in Burma, India and Thailand. The road to extinction is a one- way street and we must work to ensure that the Asian elephant does not make that journey.

I am proud to urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 465, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act. It is an appropriate and sound investment of U.S. tax dollars.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to acknowledge the occasion of Rabbi Ellen Wolintz-Fields serving as today's guest chaplain. After that opening prayer, I might say that it is easy to see why our community is so graciously and well served by the rabbi. Her 3- year-old daughter, Cameron Elizabeth, is also with us here today, and we want to welcome her here as well.

The opportunity for having visiting chaplain guests is very special as it allows religious leaders from different faiths to begin our day of legislative duty.

On August 1, Rabbi Wolintz-Fields will celebrate her first anniversary as rabbi of Congregation B'Nai Israel in Toms River, New Jersey. Since 1950, this synagogue has served as a place of worship and guidance for teachings of Conservative Judaism while offering multiple support and volunteer services for our community. Today, the rabbi has over 400 families in her congregation.

Throughout her time both studying and serving, the rabbi has received various awards and recognitions for her contributions to preserving the Jewish faith. She is a recipient of the Goldstein Prize for Jewish History and the Rosalyn Gooen Milians Education Award.

While she has numerous noteworthy achievements, the Rabbi is particularly proud of her family. She is married to Jonathan Fields and, in addition to Cameron Elizabeth, they have a 1\1/2\-year-old son, Coby Dov.

I appreciate the rabbi taking time from her busy schedule to visit Washington, DC in order to give the opening prayer in the people's House, and I am glad I had the occasion to assist her to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the author of this bill, but with strong opposition to H.R. 2956.

Mr. Speaker, the short title of this bill is the ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not responsible. It is irresponsible. This bill is an irresponsible political act that will put our troops in danger and will result in catastrophic consequences for the United States, for the Iraqi people, for Israel, for the greater Middle Eastern region, and for the rest of the world.

As The Washington Post said in this morning's paper, this bill is being considered today for ``reasons having more to do with American politics than with Iraqi reality.''

We must oppose this bill for numerous reasons, but let me mention just three. First, this bill fails to highlight the consequences of reducing our force levels too early. Such consequences would have a devastating effect on Iraq, would embolden al Qaeda in Iran, and would have severe security impacts on Israel and throughout the Middle East.

Al Qaeda and its proxies are engaged in a jihad against the United States and against the West. Al Qaeda's second in command, al Zawahiri, reaffirmed in a July 4 speech an al Qaeda plan to use Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia for jihadi planning and training against us.

Second, instead of putting forward legislation that offers an alternative to the plan being implemented by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, this political ploy calls for a vague ``troop reduction'' to be a ``limited presence'' in a ``safe and orderly manner'' within 120 days; but it fails to define any of these terms.

Specifically, this bill does not define what ``limited presence'' means. Does it mean 50,000 troops or 100,000 troops or 137,000 troops? What is a limited presence? No one knows. This is not a serious bill; it is a political bill.

Third, the bill requires the President to address whether it is necessary for our Armed Forces to carry out missions such as, listen to this, protecting diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, whether it is necessary to carry out acts like acting to disrupt or eliminate al Qaeda, or if it is necessary to carry out acts including training and equipping members of Iraqi security forces. Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, for goodness sake, what else would we do there?

It is illogical to ask whether these missions are necessary and only proves once again that this bill is a political tool and not an alternative plan.

There are also two other points that my colleagues should consider. First, the situation in Iraq is not conducive to a force reduction. As an example of why this is true, the British have indicated their intent to draw down and have pulled back to the Basra airport. And as a result, Basra is now in the center of a power struggle between Shiite elements and tribal leaders over control of oil and political power. Local governance control has fractured along militia lines because of a British redeployment like the ones we are talking about in this bill.

Second, we need to remind ourselves of what happened in Beirut and Afghanistan when forces precipitously withdrew there. In October 1983, our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed by Hezbollah with support from Iran. We withdrew our Marines in February 1984, and by that April, the remainder of the peacekeeping force had followed. That civil war continued until 1990 and Hezbollah emerged as a much stronger force, which to this day threatens the West. We should ask ourselves: Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of Hezbollah and the influence of Tehran

had we not had a precipitous withdrawal like the one provided for in this bill?

Second, in the 1980s, the Afghan resistance built momentum by recruiting Muslim fighters to wage jihad against the Soviets. The Soviet withdrawal of 1989 was followed by a civil war and the collapse of the government. The Taliban rose in 1993 and gained control of Afghanistan.

In 1996, bin-Laden moved to Afghanistan where he forged an alliance between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. What followed were al-Qaeda attacks on the WorId Trade Center, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and then September 11th. My colleagues, ask yourself this: ``Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of al-Qaeda by responding to these threats?''

I want to urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the world is watching how the United States handles this tough challenge in Iraq. If we concede defeat and retreat, we will send a strong message of weakness and inability to remain committed to our allies and to our enemies.

Tom Friedman noted in the New York Times this week that our withdrawal will mean ``more ethnic, religious and tribal killings across Iraq,'' adding, ``it will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine, no less than Darfur.'' The Post today also stated that a withdrawal will result in a ``full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide.'' Picture the Iraqis who have helped us, picture them watch as we prepare to leave and picture them clinging to our vehicles in fear of their very lives as we start down the road from Baghdad.

I believe this reckless abandonment of the mission in Iraq would send a clear message to the Iraqi people, our allies, and potential partners around the world that Americans are weak and cannot be trusted. In this world of transnational terrorism and proliferation we can not afford to stand alone.

It is critical that we give General Petraeus the months we gave him to implement his strategy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous bill. In this case national security should trump national politics.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the participants of the House FelIows Program on the completion of their weeklong program. As an initiative of the Office of the Historian, this has been a unique opportunity for a select group of secondary education teachers of American history and government.

This weeklong workshop is designed to help educators improve the knowledge and understanding of the ``People's House.'' One of the goals of the program is to develop curricular materials on the history and practice of the House for use in schools. Each Fellow prepares his or her brief lesson plan on a congressional topic of their choosing, and these plans become part of a teaching resource database on the House.

During the school year following their participation in the House Fellows Program, each Fellow will have the responsibility to present their experiences and lesson plans to at least one in-service institute for teachers of history and government. Over the next 5 years, in selecting a teacher from every congressional district, the House Fellows Program will be able to impact over 10,000 high school teachers, providing an inside account of how the House of Representatives functions, and energizing thousands of students to become informed and active citizens.

I know that all Members will join me in congratulating the following teachers who have successfully participated in this week's program: Ms. Lee Adelizzi, Toms River High School South, Toms River, New Jersey (NJ03, Saxton). Mr. Anthony Escalera, Montclair High School, Montclair, California (CA26, Dreier). Mr. Matthew Carter, Rialto High School, Rialto, California (CA41, Lewis). Mr. Herbert Fischer, Wadleigh High School of Performing Arts, New York, New York (NY 15, Rangel). Mr. Scott Kaplan, Largo High School, Largo, Florida (FL10, Young). Mr. Kent Padgett, Jefferson City Public School District, Jefferson City, Missouri (MO04, Skelton). Ms. Elaine Tubb, Charles County Public Schools, LaPlata, Maryland (MD05, Hoyer). Mr. David Williams, Prince William County Public Schools, Manassas, Virginia (VA10, Wolf). Ms. Valerie Ziegler, Abraham Lincoln High School, San Francisco, California (CA12, Lantos).

I thank the Office of the Historian for sponsoring this program. Under the leadership of

Dr. Robert Remini and Dr. Fred Beuttler, along with their staff, the Office of the Historian is dedicated to preserving, presenting, and fostering the history of the House of Representatives, the ``People's House.''

Madam Chairlady, I rise to strike the last word.

Madam Chairlady, I would like to engage my distinguished colleague from Washington, Chairman Dicks, in a colloquy regarding funding for an important conservation project in the district I represent.

The State of New Jersey has only 3 percent Federal land ownership and is also the most densely populated State in the country. From national parks and wildlife areas to soccer fields and city playgrounds, our investments in conservation, preservation, wildlife and recreation pay dividends each and every day.

The coastal areas of our Nation are under extreme pressure for development. The Third District of New Jersey, where the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is located, is no exception. It is vital that we assist our States and local governments in a true Federal/State/local partnership to purchase tracts of land like the one within the Forsythe Refuge boundary, environmentally valuable land that can be bought now but most likely will be lost permanently for future use in the very near future.

I appreciate the challenges that the subcommittee faced in this difficult budget year; however, I am hopeful that we will recognize the importance of this project to the people that I represent and New Jersey as a whole.

We have a responsibility to our children to ensure that green spaces remain to provide clean air and water and ample opportunities to enjoy wildlife and the great outdoors. The economy of the district I represent depends on a vibrant and healthy economy.

I yield to my friend from Washington.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his comments, and I appreciate our ongoing partnership and effort on issues such as this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the process that we've gone through to bring this bill to the floor has been an extensive one. We started under the leadership of Chairman Skelton in January, and as we moved through the days and the weeks, there were numerous, both full committee and subcommittee hearings.

There were visits here on Capitol Hill in our office and in other places by military leaders. There were visits by us to the Pentagon and to bases around the continental United States and, I might add, there were visits by us to our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors who are serving overseas.

There were briefings too numerous to count, and a good process. And I want to just take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Chairman Skelton for the orderliness and the fairness with which this process was conducted.

This is a good bill, and I intend to support it. It provides for some new things, provides for some force protection measures that are so important in the war that we're now engaged in. It provides for additional money for the Stryker system. It provides for additional resources for up-armored Humvees, and it provides for steps forward in the new Joint Tactical Vehicle program.

We added 10 more aircraft known as C-17s, which are strategic airlifters to get us to the fight. We took care of some personnel issues, including a significant pay raise for military personnel. And, because we're at war, and because we're using our military equipment, it wears out. It's a tough terrain that we're involved in in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so we included $3.6 billion for Army reset and $8.2 billion for Marine Corps reset.

And I might add that quality of life remains extremely important to the chairman, to the ranking member, and to all of us who serve on the committee, and so military construction dollars were added to provide the quality of life that is important to our military personnel.

Now, it's a good bill, and I'm going to support it. If I were the person sitting at the desk writing the bill all by myself, I would have done some things differently. But that being said, it continues to be a bill that is worthy of everyone's support.

I would have tried to find a way to include more money for the Future Combat System. We cut it by almost 25 percent. This is the Army's modernization program, and the first modernization program anything like it since World War II. It combines the use of technology that's available today with

some more traditional combat equipment, but it's good for the future. It's good for urban combat, it's good for being able to see the enemy who now has found ways to hide on our conventional systems. And it's a big cut.

I would have also tried to add back the 9 percent that was reduced from the missile defense system. Today we have a missile defense system that actually will work once it is deployed, but we reduced it by 9 percent.

So, Mr. Chairman, once again I hope that the majority of our colleagues on this side of the aisle will support this bill. I think it is a good bill. It is one that is needed, particularly in these times when the United States of America is at war.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Madam Chair, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the remainder of this minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for purposes of a motion.

motion to rise by mr. westmoreland

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Madam Chairlady, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, who joined this House several years ago after having spent 25 years in the Marine Corps, Congressman John Kline.

Madam Chairlady, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, one of the provisions that is contained in this en bloc amendment is a provision that will help provide a higher level of security for our military personnel in the continental United States. As most of you probably read in the newspaper, a terrorist cell was apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a short time ago.

They had been planning a small arms attack on soldiers, Reservists, actually, who were preparing to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan at Fort Dix.

One of the elements of this planning involved a pizza delivery man. The pizza delivery man would access the base to deliver pizza to soldiers in the

evening who had completed their day's training.

As the apprehension was made, it was disclosed that this individual had actually entered onto the base, memorized the roads and the buildings on the base, and had actually drawn a map to provide to the other members of the cell who would take part in the attack.

This provision that's in this en bloc amendment would provide some extra tools for base commanders to be sure that people who enter onto Federal installations would have a background check done through the FBI, as well as through the Department of Homeland Security where immigration records are kept.

I want to thank Mr. Andrews for his high level of cooperation on this, and also to express my thanks to the chairman for agreeing to make this provision part of this en bloc amendment.

I understand there are some questions about it. Mr. Andrews and I, I won't speak for him, as we work through this, between now and the time we get a conference report, there may be some changes that are necessary. The last thing we want to do is to unduly restrict civilian activities, legitimate civilian activities on and around military bases.

So I look forward to working with the chairman, the ranking member and Mr. Andrews and others who may be interested to make sure that we do not do something that is harmful to morale or stymies activities on or around military bases.

Madam Chairman, this amendment, is perhaps well intended

but goes much too far. This together with the $764 million that has already been cut from the bill provides us with a 20 percent cut in the missile defense program.

Since 2001, contrary to what the proponents of this amendment just said, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 27 successful hit-to- kill intercepts. That is 27 out of 36 attempts. I am very proud of these results.

Let me just highlight some of them. On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground-based mid-course defense interceptor.

In November 2005 and in June 2006, and again in April 2007, less than a month ago, the SM-3 successfully intercepted both separating and unitary targets.

In July 2006, January 2007, and April 6, 2007, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System, successfully intercepted unitary targets.

Finally, during this past March, we saw a successful hit in-flight test of the Airborne Laser Targeting System; all successes, not failures.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for two very important reasons. First, there is a growing threat. Today's Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The New York Times, says that North Korea is developing new, long-range missiles capable of hitting Guam, an article from the Herald Tribune.

The second set of reasons that I support this amendment is that while there is a growing threat there is a rapidly emerging U.S. missile defense system. Since 2001, our successes have

been many. We have conducted 27 successful hit-to-kill intercepts. That's 27 out of 36 attempts.

Therefore, let me just highlight some of the most recent successes. On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground- based midcourse defense interceptor.

In November of 2005, June 2006 and, again, in April of 2007, less than a month ago, we successfully deployed an SM-3 interceptor, both separating and unitary targets.

In July 2006, January 2007 and April 2007, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System successfully intercepted unitary targets.

Finally, during the past March, we saw successful in-flight tests of the Airborne Laser Targeting System used for boost-phase intercept. Each of the near-term capabilities of PATRIOT, Aegis BMD, and GMD are only successful today because we provided them funding to test and develop them.

Cutting the Missile Defense Agency by $764 million will have the exact opposite effect. Therefore, knowing that our warfighters are asking for additional missile defense capabilities as soon as possible and that we have a missile defense system that actually works, Congress should not reduce defense spending on missile defense in light of the growing and clearly demonstrated threat by our adversaries.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form I am.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to resist the urge to begin a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within 90 days as this bill requires. Doing so would have a devastating impact on our ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and the entire region. My motion to recommit will ensure that when we withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground by requiring we take into account our national security assessments and the regional security implications, as outlined by the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.

We are not in the position to determine when U.S. forces should redeploy from Iraq. Only the commanders on the ground have that information. Only our commanders and diplomatic representatives on the ground can determine effectively when conditions are in place to warrant a troop withdrawal. It would be irresponsible for us to assign such an arbitrary timeline and impose it upon our leadership in theater.

We have to consider the conditions that we would leave the Iraqi Government to deal with going forward if we were to precipitously withdraw our personnel.

In my view, there are two significant threats that would remain behind, and the Iraqi Government would not be prepared to effectively counter either one. The al Qaeda threat in Iraq is significant. Al Qaeda's deputy commented a few days ago that the establishment of an Islamic state of Iraq is an important milestone on the way to reviving the Islamic caliphate. He noted that the defeat of American forces in Iraq is a key to this objective.

Securing control over Iraq is the strategic objective for al Qaeda that

will enable it to conduct operations against their targets in the Middle East, particularly against Israel, in addition to Europe and other U.S. global interests. Al Qaeda is particularly interested in the Persian Gulf oil fields, and Iraq would serve as a valuable staging area for such attacks.

Right now the Iraqi forces, security forces working in partnership with U.S. forces, are building momentum to erode al Qaeda's influence over Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. A premature withdrawal would derail those efforts.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been conducting indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi civilians. Sunni Arabs reject this tactic, and there is a growing backlash among the population. Sunni communities have encouraged thousands to join the local police forces and improve security. This is real progress.

A few days ago, al Qaeda's deputy warned Iraqi citizens that have supported the U.S. to consider what will happen to them after the Americans leave. If we abandon them now, we will be hard-pressed to gain their trust any time again in the future.

Iran also has an interest in seeing us fail and leave Iraq early. We know that Iran has been arming militia groups within Iraq. We know that Iran has infiltrated various levels of Iraqi government and its security forces.

If we redeployed from Iraq before the Maliki government has the capability to contain this threat, we would leave Iraq vulnerable to becoming an Iranian surrogate.

The porous Iraqi-Syrian border would provide Iran with contiguous, unfettered access to the coast of Lebanon. Through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran would then become even more a danger to the prospect of security and stability in the Middle East.

It would be irresponsible for us to even consider withdrawing from Iraq before the Maliki government has the capacity to deter these two threats. We must be conscious of the dangerous message we are sending with an early withdrawal.

First, we would lose the trust and will of the Iraqi people and the democratically elected government we worked so hard to create. The extremists associated with al Qaeda will hear a message that will tell them that Americans acknowledged defeat, and do not have the stomach for this war or any other war with al Qaeda. Our defeat would only inspire like-minded jihadists to take up their cause.

One need only look as far as yesterday to see the headlines of what could happen here in this country. A couple of days ago, we were reminded how close to home the terror threat is. The Fort Dix, New Jersey, individuals are just one example.

I ask everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I would like to thank Mr. Lewis for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, this vote to me is about Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. Most of you don't know Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. You see, they are my granddaughters, the next generation, the generation that will perhaps be most affected by this policy.

To many in this Chamber, I am afraid this vote is not about the next generation; it is about setting a date for surrender. I believe it is time that this House go on record and vote on whether emergency funding bills should have a troop withdrawal timeline.

I want to reiterate to my colleagues the message that we are sending if we include such a timeline in this bill. Make no mistake, it is nothing less than a date certain for surrender.

Some in this Congress believe that the withdrawal timeline will send a message to the Iraqi Government to get serious about taking the lead and stabilizing Iraq. This is a flawed argument. It is flawed because it fails to address the collateral effects, the other effects and damage this message will do to the Iraqi people, the United States, to our allies, and to future American generations.

A surrender timeline for our troops will send a very clear message to al Qaeda, to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shiite militias in Iraq. It will tell them that Americans no longer have the stomach to see this through.

The Iranians, who are continuing down the road of development of nuclear weapon capability despite sanctions and international pressure, will also take note of our timeline. Ahmadinejad already believes that Americans are incapable of resistance. He has said so. Our partner nations in the Middle East are watching to see the level of American commitment to Iraq before they increase their level of assistance. If we tell them we are going to pull up stakes and go home in 2008, can we expect much support from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, from Qatar, from the UAE, from Jordan? I don't think so.

A surrender timeline will cause us to lose credibility with our allies, our other allies in the war on terror. Al Qaeda's front man, al-Zawahiri, warned our Iraqi counterparts already that America is about to depart and abandon them, just as we abandoned our allies in Vietnam. A surrender timeline

will certainly degrade the level of trust and confidence that Iraqi soldiers have toward our forces. The negative effect of this surrender timeline on our troops will be significant as well.

Some in Congress say the war is already lost. We have heard that already. In my opinion, it is not. We are on the right track with a renewed strategy toward Iraqi security.

Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently commented: ``The conflict in Iraq is central to our foreign policy and our future, indeed, our well-being. Surely we must keep fighting to win,'' he said, ``as long as victory remains possible. And it is possible although not certain,'' he said, ``that we will win in Iraq. Right now, the signs are more hopeful than they have been in many months. It would be a tragedy for America and for Iraq to abandon the fight just as the possibility of success begins to emerge.''

Mr. Speaker, I have the highest regard for every man and woman who serves in the United States military. Whether they be a member of the Air Force or the Army or the Marine Corps or the Navy or the Coast Guard, everyone who volunteers to serve our country deserves the gratitude of every American citizen. And to the extent that they have provided the great service to our country, we all thank them, each and every one.

Just as people volunteer to be in the military, some people, various people, in the military volunteer to do different things. And those who volunteer to be members of the Special Operations Command are often referred to as the ``tip of the spear.'' This is the insignia on this plate of the Special Operations Command. It is the tip of the spear. And we refer to them as members of an organization that is the tip of the spear because they volunteer to put them themselves in great danger very often. They do it for our country. They do it for our government. They do it for their families and their friends and neighbors; and it makes them, in my view, a very special cadre of people in the United States military.

Today, there are 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the joint organization made up of members of all four services known as the Special Operations Command. The acronym, of course, that we use is SOCOM. These are highly trained individuals who devote themselves and commit their lives to the very defense of our country.

There are people in the Special Operations Command who take part in something called direct action. The Navy SEALs would be such an organization, Naval Special Warfare Command actually is the formal name, or Navy SEALs as they more generally are known as people who are often direct actors.

And then there are special operations folks who are indirect actors, who try to manipulate, if you will, the shape of the battlefield or attitudes on the battlefield among our enemies that would be beneficial to us. These are civil affairs people and psychological operations people and others who take part in an indirect way rather than in a so- called direct way.

Since SOCOM's inception, the special operators have conducted high- profile missions, including operations to establish a democratic government in Panama, hunting Scuds during the first Gulf War, providing relief to Kurds during Operation Provide Comfort, and the mission to capture Mohammed Hadid in Somalia, and many other operations around the world.

Not only did they put themselves in great danger, and not only do they perform a great duty to our country, but they do it at great sacrifice for themselves and their family. They train constantly. They have deployed very often and they are, indeed, a credit to themselves, a credit to their families, who pay a sacrifice as well, and a great credit to our Armed Forces.

So I rise today to commend the gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for offering this resolution. It is certainly one that is well deserved on this 20th anniversary of the establishment of the United States Special Operations Command.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from San Diego for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this legislation and want to highlight two key components of the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act that have significant relevance to some of my own constituents who are currently recovering at Walter Reed Mologne House.

Section 101 of the bill concerns improving the medical and dental care for servicemembers assigned to hospitals in outpatient status. Under this section, medical care case managers will have the training and resources to enable them to work closely with servicemembers in managing patient care and ensuring that patients fully understand his or her status and has a realistic expectation of the process ahead.

One of my constituents has been at Walter Reed for close to 10 months now after being evacuated from Iraq. During this time, he has had challenges in knowing his status in the disability determination process. He has been told that he had anywhere from 30 to 60 days left, although Walter Reed is working hard to get him home sooner. He is eager to get back home to his family and employer. His employer is holding his job for him. It is difficult for him to plan accordingly, however, because without being fully informed of his status in the system, it makes his future uncertain.

This bill would ensure that going forward, this individual would have up-to-date information on his status so that he is no longer kept in the dark about when he can expect to go home.

Section 101 of the bill also includes the establishment of the service-member advocate who will assist the patient in ensuring quality of life issues are taken care of, assisting in resolving problems related to financial or administrative matters, and overall ensure the patient and the family members are informed of benefits and program issues.

Both of my constituents who are currently at Walter Reed could have benefited greatly from the servicemember advocate. They have both encountered various administrative problems that have since been resolved with the assistance of their chain of command. However, I believe these problems would have been avoided in the first place had they been in contact with an advocate mandated to assist in these types of issues.

During discussions with these two soldiers and Walter Reed officials, the pattern that I have seen is that the actual medical care these wounded warriors receive is actually quite outstanding. The problems have really occurred in the red tape and bureaucracy that surrounds the administrative requirements and disability process. It should not take 3 or 4 months to begin receiving combat-related injury rehabilitation pay, for example. Servicemembers should receive accurate information in a timely manner when they inquire about their recovery plan or about specific benefits for which they might be eligible.

It is difficult at best for care managers to provide the necessary attention to a patient when they are handling caseloads beyond their capability. This bill goes a long way towards addressing this problem by limiting the number of cases for managers to oversee.

This bill and any other actions that this Congress can do to improve this system to ensure servicemembers receive the attention they deserve merits our full support; and I, therefore, urge everyone to support this bill.